{"id":947,"date":"2019-03-10T14:55:58","date_gmt":"2019-03-10T14:55:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=947"},"modified":"2019-10-21T00:47:48","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T23:47:48","slug":"tribalism-colonialism-and-capitalism","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/tribalism-colonialism-and-capitalism\/","title":{"rendered":"Tribalism, colonialism and capitalism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
December 2000, Ghana<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
This article has been reproduced from the Socialist Standard<\/em>  \n(December 2000), the monthly journal of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
A study of West Africa shows that the festering of tribalist,\nnationalist and racist sentiment are nurtured and sustained by the capitalist\nsystem.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Within the context of neo-colonial statehood, tribalism is a colonial\n derivative based on matriarchal or patriarchal relations forged in the \ndistant past and used by an ethnic group as a defensive and an offensive\n weapon against other groups. The position of some of those who see \ntribalism as the main cause of Africa’s present social and economic \npredicament follows a familiar pattern of thinking. The colonialists, \naccording to them, tried to make a nation-state out of a hotch-potch of \nantagonistic and uncivilised African peoples but failed in their pious \nmission. The various tribes had age-long hatred for one another and as \nsoon as the colonial power went the natives descended into barbarism \nmaiming and killing each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nNationalists in Africa see the matter differently, painting idyllic \npictures of the African past and blaming all the tribal conflicts that \nhave erupted after independence solely on colonialism. This viewpoint is\n as historically incorrect as it is undialectical. Facts abound on how \nthe internal evolution of some African communities before colonialism \nand mercantile capitalism had provided groups of people the opportunity \nto appropriate the labour of others, accumulate economic surplus and \nconsequently subjugate other communities. This is a scenario that must \nhave generated a certain level of tribal animosity and discrimination \nbased on economic exploitation and wealth, even if this was on a minor \nscale compared with the situation in colonial times and the \npost-independence era. It was these differences that were deliberately \nand carefully nurtured by the colonialists, and later exploited by the \nneo-colonial bourgeoisie after independence to keep the people manacled \nto the capitalist system.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In colonial times<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\nColonialism whether it was of the British, Belgian, French or German \nvariety was not meant to be a benign enterprise. The motive behind its \nestablishment was one: the exploitation of labour and the accumulation \nof economic surplus. Consequently, the driving force behind it, \ncapitalism, did not spare the exploitation of labour in both the \nmetropolis and other lands even if it meant spilling blood to fulfil \nthis sordid agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThis mercenary impulse had implied increased production, technological \nexpansion, the growth of the external and domestic market and ultimately\n the annexation and political control of other territories. Tribal \ngroups which stood in the way were, in colonial parlance, pacified. But \nif, as suggested in some quarters, the colonial enterprise had meant to \npacify and carve out viable nation-states capable of competing with \nmetropolitan capitalism, the monopolistic tendency and vampire essence \nof the profit system would have been still-born. Far from creating \nproblems for itself, its policy towards the people of the colonies was \nguided by the trinitarian doctrine\u2014atomisation, exploitation and \ndomination. This unfolded in its pattern of social and economic \ninvestment in what came to be known as Ghana and before that as the Gold\n Coast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nBritish colonial policy encouraged investments in only those areas of \nthe colony which were endowed with mineral and forest resources. This \npattern of investment engendered considerable regional variations in \nterms of the provision of roads, railway lines and social services. Thus\n the Southern Sector which by virtue of its location abounded in timber,\n gold and fertile soil benefited far more in terms of infrastructural \ndevelopment than the Northern territories which did not have any known \nmineral resources. But even in the Southern part of the colony there was\n discrimination in the provision of amenities on the basis of the \ncontribution to the exportable surplus. The pattern of investment that \ncharacterised British economic policy was not born out of any preference\n for the Asante over the Dagarti, but based on cold capitalist \nreasoning. After all, some minimum maintenance of workers’ health and \neducation was a reasonable investment since it ensured the maximisation \nof the extraction of surplus from the worker; and the greedy capitalists\n by their calculations knew this too well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nHow did this promote tribalism? By annexing the Gold Coast and putting \nthe people in a subordinate status, the British colonial power froze any\n further evolution and consolidation of a national identity. For \nexample, it destroyed the principal catalyst for achieving the unity of \nfragmented loyalties. Not only did colonialism deprive states like \nBenin, Oyo and Asante of all their principal vassals and tributary \nstates, but it followed up the process of fragmentation by smashing the \nbasis of the hegemonic power of these states thus giving full rein to \nall manner of divisive tendencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nWhile pretending to be carrying out a mission of uniting the \nincorrigibly warring tribes British colonial policy consciously and \nsystematically separated the various people, creating conflict and \nill-will among them. The colonial government sometimes saw the value of \nstimulating tribal jealousies so as to keep the colonised from dealing \nwith their principal opposition\u2014the colonial and the emergent African \nbourgeoisie who together were milking the people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nBy categorising the various linguistic subgroups in the Gold \nCoast\u2014Frafra, Dagarti, Ninkarsi Kusaasi, Dagomba, Akyim, Asante and \nFanti\u2014as tribes the colonial regime began to nurture parochial and \nexclusivist consciousness among people who previously had regarded \nthemselves as one. All official documents in colonial times, for \nexample, required information on the place of origin and ethnic \nbackground of the individual. Names were thus suffixed with one’s tribal\n background and area of origin. Feeling regarded as a member of an \nethnic group by others and that they would behave towards you \naccordingly, individuals began to feel the need to identify more closely\n with their “kith and kin” and to promote its interest relative to \nothers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nRacist colonial ideology ignored the fact that the people of the Gold \nCoast shared a common heritage of colonial oppression and \ncolonially-induced capitalist exploitation with its concomitant ills: \npoverty, ignorance, disease and malnutrition. As a result, its \nphilosophy of determining the inferiority or superiority of a people in \nterms of the extent to which they had culturally imbibed all what the \ncolonial establishment represented came to dominate the worldview of \nsome Africans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nColonial ideology and culture operated on the basis of a hierarchy of \ncultures in which that of the metropolitan bourgeoisie was supposed to \nbe supreme. The culture of the country of origin of the metropolitan \nbourgeoisie therefore became the standard by which a people’s level of \nprimitiveness or barbarism was determined. The more your thinking, \nvalues and mannerisms were close to the colonialists’ the more human you\n were; and by implication the further your behaviour and outlook were \nfrom the masters’ the less human you were. This explained why the rich \nand educated elite who were products of the colonial educational system \ndid not answer questions in their African dialect but in English. They \ntalked about the opera which they had never seen except from a distance,\n referred to winter and Buckingham Palace and, above all, adopted a \ncritical attitude towards other Africans who they derogatively referred \nto as “bush people”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nBut the idea of trying to approximate to the coloniser was not only to \nbe found in the relations between the African and the European \ncoloniser. Sometimes Africans tried to approximate their status to other\n Africans if they thought those individuals enjoyed a higher status. \nAfrican ethnic groups which had a high number of educated and rich \npeople within them as a result of their long contact with the coloniser \ntended to feel superior to others. Even if they were poor and illiterate\n they identified psychologically with those in their tribal group who \nwere rich and educated. It did not matter to the poor Asante, Frafra or \nEwe person if all of them were victims of crude exploitation by \ncolonialism and the African bourgeoisie. In their minds, the \nidentification with the tribal big boss and the fact that they came from\n the same ethnic background was enough, even if it did not ensure the \nenjoyment of a spoon of marmalade from the master’s table. These \nexclusivist and warped thinking explained why a poor Asante for example \ncould feel deeply offended if he was mistaken for a Busanga or any other\n tribe. This not only lead to more barriers between the ethnic groups \nbut effectively undermined their capacity to confront capitalist \nexploitation. The inter-ethnic struggle for superiority or at least to \navoid the stigma of inferiority dissipated the energies of the people.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tribalism today<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\nThe African bourgeoisie which assumed the mantle of power after colonial\n rule also did not fail to realise the usefulness of tribalism in the \nstruggle against the African masses. Like racial violence in Europe, \ntribalism was a means to an end: deflecting the anger of the masses from\n the neo-colonial bourgeoisie and directing it at other members of the \nworking class. In another sense it was the most convenient cover for the\n capitalist robbers who stole economic surplus from the working class \nand poor peasants. The attitude of the African bourgeoisie towards the \ncolonial state that it inherited, therefore, was not that of dismantling\n and radically transforming the exploitative relations of production. It\n was guided by the desire to inherit the colonial state-machine and seek\n accommodation with international capital in the extraction of economic \nsurplus from the working people. Consequently, post-independence \npolitics in Africa has witnessed the arousal and manipulation of tribal \npassions and petty differences among ethnic groups, for the same sordid \nreasons that the bourgeoisie in Europe sometimes find convenient it to \nuse racism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe predatory character of capitalism coupled with the hollowness and \nhypocrisy of the African bourgeoisie created fertile conditions for the \nfestering of this cancerous disposition. Slogans, values and the moral \nhigh ground postured by the bourgeoisie as events unfolded long after \nindependence have been blatantly self-serving. As for their masters \nabroad, the state machinery has now become an important instrument in \ntheir quest for capital accumulation at the expense of the masses, whom \nthey claim in political party campaigns to be liberating from poverty, \ndisease, etc. However, given the peculiar historical and economic \ncircumstances in which it has had to evolve it is not an exact carbon \ncopy of its masters abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe African bourgeoisie is more desirous of imbibing the lifestyles and \nprivileges of its overlords in Europe and America than showing the \ncreative and strong interest in production that marked the genesis of \nthe bourgeoisie in Europe. Its extravagance and neo-colonial conditions \nhave been at the core of the steep declines of production levels in \nrecent times, leading to shocking levels of destitution and poverty. But\n it is precisely these conditions of want that the bourgeoisie has \nshamelessly manipulated to scuttle the unity of the dispossessed in the \ntowns using tribalism as a tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nCruel economic conditions have forced many residents in poverty-stricken\n suburbs to seek help and protection by means of a network of social \nobligations, transferring some of their traditional feudal loyalties and\n institutions to the urban environment. Most ethnic groups in Accra, \nKumasi and Sekondi-Takordi have installed chiefs to whom they pay \nallegiance and seek protection. Tribal associations have also been \nformed to advance the cause of particular ethnic groups and used as \nsources of benefit: help in finding a job, accommodation, money and \ncredit. People also stick together to make common cause against other \ntribal groups in the struggle for economic survival in the dog-eat-dog \nenvironment that has been created by capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nIt is these tribal associations that provide arenas for the various \nfactions of the bourgeoisie to launch offensives and counter-offensives \nagainst each other in their struggle for political and economic power. \nEvents in the run-up to this month’s presidential election in Ghana \nprovide ample testimony of this, as many of such groups with the backing\n of the bourgeoisie have sprung up, all seeking to advance the interest \nof the bourgeoisie in the various ethnic groups. They have organised and\n whipped up the sentiments of the lower strata of their tribespeople \nagainst rivals belonging to different ethnic groups. They have created \nthe impression that it is only when one of your tribesmen is at the helm\n of affairs that you can have a fair share of national development and \nindividual personal advancement. Consequently, where a presidential or \nvice-presidential candidate comes from has become extremely important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nBut as it has always been the case after every election, and will surely\n be the case after this month’s elections, that those factions that win \nthe election will easily forget about the ethnic support base they so \nsubtly manipulated to propel themselves to power. They will shun the \ncompany of their poor tribespeople who supported them and will \nfraternise closely with their allies in other ethnic groups. The rancour\n and bitterness that characterised their relations will soon be \nforgotten, except on political party platforms. They will play tennis, \nbilliards and golf together and discuss lucrative business contracts in \nposh hotels. As for their indigent brethren who had worked tirelessly to\n put them in power, they will have to start thinking seriously about how\n to pay school fees, feed the family, and get good accommodation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe festering of tribalist, nationalist and racist sentiment are \nnurtured and sustained by the capitalist system of production which \nproduces only for profits and not for needs. The abolition of the profit\n system and its replacement with socialism based on the common ownership\n and democratic control of the means and instruments for production and \ndistribution would put an end to discrimination and bigotry. But this \ncannot happen unless people understand and see the need for this kind of\n change. More than ever before, the formation of socialist parties in \nAfrica to take up the task of spreading the socialist message has become\n urgent.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Author: Adongo Aidan Avugma<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Back to the Politics Index<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Back to the World Socialist Movement home page<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
December 2000, Ghana This article has been reproduced from the Socialist Standard (December 2000), the monthly journal of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. A study of West Africa shows that the festering of tribalist, nationalist and racist sentiment are nurtured and sustained by the capitalist system. Within the context of neo-colonial statehood, tribalism is…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-947","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=947"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/947\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2614,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/947\/revisions\/2614"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}